Even the Free Software Foundation can't manage to get it right.Version 3 of the LGPL, for example, is incompatible with version
2 of the GPL. This has caused a problem recently for a few GNU
library projects that wanted to move to LGPLv3 but were used
by other projects that were GPLv2-only.

The official stance is that projects shouldn't be v2-only, they
should always be v2-or-later. I'll let you try to persuade Linux
to switch. Oh, and good luck with PDF readers, too; the only
open source PDF readers at the moment are based on xpdf,
which is GPLv2-only. The FSF is frantically trying to write a
new PDF library to get around this limitation, and licensing it
as GPLv3-or-later.

__________________religions, worst damnation of mankind"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus TorvaldsLinux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.vermaden's:linksresourcesdeviantartspreadbsd

GPLv3, I've only been able to stomach reading once or twice.... on the upside, it caused an increasing quantity of code in my home directory to fall under the beer-ware license, should they ever need distribution lol.

We can bitch all we want about GPL but the truth of the matter is that as long as there are no BSD binary utilities (linker and assembler) all BSDs can be wiped of the face of the earth in a split of a second if the GNU people want that. It is amazing that so many years after the release 4.4. BSD light nobody in BSD camp have not had a need to rewrite complete tool chain. Fully functional PCC would be a great first step but the only people who have publicly acknowledged the real Achilles tendon of BSDs (GNU Binutils) are AerieBSD developers.

As lovely as AerieBSD sounds, it is simply a group of renegade OpenBSD developers whining about Theo de Raadt not being overly respectful of their emotional requirements.

The developers are clearly aware that newer releases of GCC/binutils are (..or may be) licenced under version 3 of the GPL.. but the one thing you need to remember is that BSD has existed long before the GNU project was a gleam in Stallman's eye.

What about it? It is not even complete compiler. It uses certain parts of GCC and even if it was a complete compiler you still need binary tools. LLVM is just the easiest solution for i386 specific projects like FreeBSD to move from GCC which changed its license into GPLv3 for version 4.xxx and above which makes it unusable in any production environment. To my knowledge LLVM is useless on any non-Wintel hardware which might be good enough for FreeBSD and DragonFly but not for Net and OpenBSD.